Imágenes de página

schapen,) 4 vols. 8vo., which, though it is for the most part taken from a German work of Riedel's, is an important production for Holland. The other writers, just now mentioned, have handled the subject partially, in occasional observations and single treatises. In conclusion, I will add the titles of the Literary Journals and Reviews, which come out in Holland. The following four are monthly, and published at Amsterdam. I need bardly remark, that they are written in the Dutch language.

1. Lettergeffering, that is, Literary Disquisitions.
2. Vaderlandsch Magazyn, Dutch Magazine.
3. De Recensent ooh der Recensenten, Review of Reviews.
4. De Boekzaal, The Library.

One weekly publication appears at Haarlem, under the title of De Letterboocle, that is, The Literary Messenger.



:“When Gray writes,

Iron sleet of arrowy shower

• Hurtles in the darkened air,' he refers us to a passage in Milton's Paradise Regained, and to another in the Julius Cæsar of Shakspeare. It is, however, not without some surprise, that we find, in the same tragic Monodia,

the arrows and their burtling in the air, united in one lofty passage.

Κύπελλα δ' ιών τηλόθεν ροιζουμένων
Υπέρ κάρα στήσουσι Κίμμερός θ' όπως,
Σκιά καλύψει πέρραν, αμβλύνων σέλας.

Lycophr. 1426. xúpeara, i. e. Td véon: v. Suid. in voce. Kirjepos, i. e. sócos, áxaus. The word néppar, which means the Sun, is to be found only in Lycophron, and it is most probably a corruption, and an easy one, for métpar, which undoubtedly was an ancient term for that luminary; and the learned reader will recollect, that in a fragment of Euripides, cited by the Scholiast on the 97ıb line of the 7th Olympic Ode of Pindar, the Sun is styled, tây cúpavoû pérov και χθονός τεταμέναν αιωρήμασι πέτραν αλύσεσι χρυσέάισι.” Mr. Mathias's Postscript to Gray's Works, ii, 623.

The passage quoted by Mr. Mathias is not a fragment of Euripides, but occurs in Orestes v. 981. VOL. XX.

Cl. JI.


Μόλοιμι ταν ουρανού
Μέσον χθονός τε τεταμέναν

Αιωρήμασι πέτραν
“Αλύσεσι χρυσέαισι φερομένων

Δίναισι βώλον έξ 'Ολύμπου. As to the passage of Lycophro, the opinions of the commentators have been collected by the Editors of the New Greek Thesaurus, p. cccl., and Mr. Mathias's opinion is there quoted. See also the Index to the 1st and 2d Nos. of that Work, p. xx. Thetford,

E. H. BARKER. Nor. 27th, 1819.


Explanation of i Cor. xi. 10.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. Διά τούτο οφείλει η γυνή εξουσίαν έχειν επί της κεφαλής, δια τους αγγέ

nous. I Cor. xi. 10. Sir,

Several articles have appeared in your Journal, respecting this verse, and two of them have been written by myself. See No. I. p. 100. (and compare No. III. p. 581.) II. p. 252. III. p. 604. IV. p. 800. VIII. p. 273. XI. p. 1. (compare Barker's Class. Recr. 472–8.) XII. p. 395. I send another interpretation, which I have recently seen in a very scarce work. Thetford,

Your's respectfully, Nov. 27th, 18:9.

E. H. BARKER. “ Dio. Sub initium Christianæ religionis non viros tantum, sed et feminas prophetasse, divini scriptores nos docent. Divus Paulus 1 Cor. 40. eas precantes et proplietantes jubet esse operto capite, secus quam viri debent. Erat hoc in mulieribus subjectionis quoddam signum, et modestiæ. Quare autem feminas viris subjectas esse oporteat, ignorare non possumus, cum constet, ut Apostolus scribit, nou virum propter mulierem, sed mulierem propier virum esse creatam. Tum additur: Διά τούτο οφείλει η γυνή εξουσίαν έχειν επί της κεφαλής, δια τους αγγέλους. 1. e. ut vulgo vertitur : Ideo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput, propter Angelos. Hæc Apostoli verba et mihi et multis aliis viden

tur esse .satts obscura. Velim, Antoni, ut de tuo lumine mihi lumen accendas ; nam nihilominus tibi lucebit, cum mihi accens deris. ANT. A quovis potius quam a me tibi lumen expectes ; ipse enim in tenebris versor, vel saltem non satis video. Tale mihi lumen est,

Qualia sublucent fugiente crepuscula Phobo,

Aut ubi nox abiit, nec tamen orta dies. Dio. Dic tamen, quidquid sit, quod vides. Ant. Erat olim, cum mihi valde placeret Nortoni Knatchbulli conjectura. Is putat Apostolum velle dicere, quod mulier debeat in capite suo, h. e. viro, qui mulieris caput est, potestatem agnoscere, idque propter legem ab Angelis Dei nomine latam. Potestatem, inquit, debet agnoscere in viro per vel propter Angelos, i. e. per vel propter ipsum Deum, per vel propter legem creationis vel ordinatio

Dei, qui in prima creatione per ministerium Angelorum in hoc ordine creavit illos, atque eo ipso tempore imposuit etiam per ministerium Angelorum mulieri hanc legem subjectionis, cujus meminit 1 Cor. xiv. 34.' Sed præterquam quod v. exsi non ita sæpe pro Agnoscere sumitur, nimis longe petitum videtur per Angelos intelligere Legem Angelorum ministerio latam. Verum quidem est legem alibi datam dici per Angelos; sed cedo locum, quicunque potes, quo per Angelos lex intelligitur Angelorum ministerio data. Dio. Non possum. Pau. Neque ego. ANT. Neque alius, opinor, quisquam. Mihi videtur nobilissimi loci hic esse sensus : Non oportere, ut mulier in semet ipsa ullam potestatem habeat, possideatve; sed omnem potestatem habeat in viro, qui ipsius caput est. Sicut caput, quod mentis animi esse sedes pulatur, potestatem habet in reliqua membra; ita quoque vir in mulierem: maxime autem maritus in uxorem, de quibus Paulus potissimun loquitur. Quidquid corporis membra possunt ac valent, istud omne habent a capite. Ita mulier ownem legitimne agendi po:estaten sitam habet in viro, qui eam regit. Pau. Verum est illud poëtæ cujusdam Græci:

Γυναικί δ' άρχειν ου δέδωκεν η φύσις, Mulieri natura non dedit, ut imperet. Ant. Hoc est, quod Paulus dicit I ad Τim. ii. 12. Γυναικί δε διδάσκειν ουκ επιτρέπω, ουδ' αυO:VT:iváy còs, arx' elven y jouxla, Mulieri non permitto docere, neque dominari in virum, sed esse in silentio. Videatur Gen. iii. 16. Dio. Hactenus non male. Sed quid istud est Propter Angelos? Ant. Audies. Mea sententia Propter Angelus idem est, quod Propier exemplum Angelorum. Intelligit autem D. Scriptor Bonos Angelos, qui nullam sibi potestatem arrogant, sed eam omnem sitam habent in ipso Deo, illorum nostrique omnium creatore. Quidquid agunt, aguut Dei nomine et jussu ; sunt enim

Aveúplata deitoupyixa, spiritus ministratorii, semper sia statione contenti. Potuisset Apostolus multas alias rationes addere, propter quas feminæ non debeant sibi propriam potestatem vindicare ; sed putavit satis esse, si egregium bonorum Angelorum exemplum proponeret. Certe mulieres, quæ sua sorte et statione non contentæ vivunt, seque contra viros efferunt, similes sunt malis Angelis, tous, ut D. Judas scribit v. 6., een ongro artus TÌY EAUTūv sexiv, αλλά απολιπόντας το ίδιον οικητήριον, εις κρίσιν μεγάλης ημέρας δεσμούς αιδίοις ο Κύριος υπό ζόφον τετήρηκεν, Quos non servantes originem suam, sed derelinquentes proprium domicilium suum, Dominus vinculis æternis sub caligine reservavit ad judicium magni diei. Vides, Dionysi, quod mihi de Pauli loco videtur. Per me licet, ut alii eum aliter ac melius explicent." Antonii Borremansii Dialogus Literarius de Poëtis et

Prophetis, Amstelodami 1678. 12. p. 123.

[ocr errors]

On the Coincidence between the Belts of the Planet Jupi

ter and the Fabulous Bonds of Jupiter the Demiurgus.

There is a singular agreement between what is mythologically asserted of Jupiter, the Demiurgus of the universe, by ancient theologists, and what modern observations, through the telescope, have found to be true of the planet Jupiter, who being a mundane divinity, according to the theology of the Greeks, is a procession from, but not the same with, Jupiter the fabricator of the world. The remarkable agreement I allude to, and which has I believe been hitherto unnoticed by all modern writers, is this, that Jupiter the Demiurgus is said by ancient theologists, io have put his fatber Saturn in chains, and also lo have surrounded himself with bonds; and that the moderns have found the body of the planet Jupiter to be surrounded by several substances resembling belts or bands, and likewise that ihere is the faint resemblance of a belt about the planet Saturn. Now, of these mythological assertions, the former, that of Jupiter binding his father, is well known; but the latter, that of Jupiter binding himself, is certainly not generally known, and is only to be found in the following passage of Proclus on the Timeus of Plato, p. 20-4, παλιν ουν εξ αρχης ειπαμεν, οτι διττας ο δημιουργος εχων δυναμεις, την μεν ταυτοποιον ως εν Παρμενιδη μεμαθη

[ocr errors]

" See Bondycastle's Introductjon to Astronomy, p. 370.

καμεν, την δε ετεροποιον και διαιρει, και συνδει την ψυχην. και εστι τελικον μεν αιτιον τουτων, ινα γενηται η ψυχη μεση των ολων, ομοίως ηνωμενη και διηρημενη, δυο μεν οντων προς (lege προ) αυτης, των τε θειων, ως ενναδων, και των οντων, ως ηνωμενων. δυο δε μετ' αυτην, των μεριζομενων [μετ' αλλων], και των παντη μεριστων. και ει βουλει, προ μεν εκεινων, του ενος οντος, μετα δε ταυτα της υλης. ποιητικα δε, το ταυτον και ετερον, τα της δημιουργικης ιδια ταξεως. παραδειγματα δε, αι τομαι του παττρος, και οι δεσμοι. και γαρ τεμνει πρωτως εκεινων, (lege εκείνος) και δεσμοι τους αρρητοις δεσμοις. ταυτα και των θεολογων αινισσομενων, οποταν λεγωσι, τας τε κρoνειας εκτομας και τους δεσμους οις εαυτον λεγεται περιβαλλειν o του παντος ποιητης. i. e. «Again therefore, from the beginning, we may say, that the Demiurgus having twofold powers, the one being effective of sameness, as we learn in the Parmenides, but the other of difference; he both divides and binds the soul. He is also the final'cause of these, in order that the soul may become the middle of the whole of things, being similarly united and divided; two things existing prior to it, divine natures, as unities, and beings, as things united; and two also being posterior to it, viz. those which are divided in conjunction with others, and those which are in every respect partible; or if you are willing prior to the former, the one itself, but posterior to the latter, matter itself. But the efficient causes [of these divisions and bonds,] are same and different, which are the peculiarities of the demiurgic order. And the paradigmatic causes, are the sections and bonds of the father (Jupiter]. For he first cuts, and binds with ineffable bonds. T'hese ihings also are obscurely indicated by theologists, when they speak of the Saturnian sections and bonds, with which the maker of the universe is said to surround himself.

Proclus likewise in his treatise On the Theology of Plato (lib. v. cap. 5.) beautifully explains the meaning both of the bonds of Saturn, mentioned by Plato and the theologists, and those of Jupiter, as follows ; previously observing that the Saturnian bonds, obscurely signify, the comprehension of the intelligible, and a union with it. For the intelligible is comprehended by intellect.

Ωσπερ ουν εξηρηται μεν του νου το νοητον, λεγεται δε αυτο περιλαμβανειν ο νους, ουτω δη και ο Ζευς δεσμειν τον πατερα λεγεται, και ταυτα περι εκεινων (lege εκεινον) αυτος συνδεων αυτον. και γαρ ο δεσμος περιληψις εστι των συνδεομενων. το δε αληθες ωδε εχει. νους μεν εστιν ο Κρονος παντελης· νους δε και ο μεγιστος Ζευς. νους εκατερος ων, εστι δηπου και νοητον αυτος. πας γαρ νους εις αυτον επεστραπται, προς δε αυτον επιστρεφει, (lege επιστρεφων) προς εαυτον ενεργει. προς εαυτον δε ενεργων, και ου προς τα εξω, νοητον εστιν, αμα και νοερον. η μεν νοει, νοερον, η


VOEITAI, *21 νοητον, ωστε και ο δικος νους, εαυτο νους εστι, και αυτω νοητον. ωσαύτως δε και ο κρονιος νους, εαυτω νοητον εστι, και εαυτω νους. αλλ' ο μεν, μαλλον νους, ο δε μαλλον νοητος, ιδρυται γαρ, ο μεν, κατα την ακροτητα την

« AnteriorContinuar »